The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) of China has announced that Xiaomi has initiated a request for invalidation of Huawei's patent "ZL201810188201.7". The patent in question relates to a method and mobile terminal for locking the screen of a mobile device.
According to the patent, the method for locking the screen includes receiving an instruction from the user to light up the screen of the mobile terminal, and lighting up the screen of the mobile terminal. In the state of locking the screen, the method calls a first picture to replace the preset lock screen background. The first picture can be downloaded or photographed by the user, or pushed to the mobile terminal by the server according to the user's preference.
The mobile terminal described in the patent is configured to automatically switch the lock screen background in the lock screen state. When the screen is turned on, the user can see the new lock screen background. This allows for a more varied and dynamic lock screen experience for users.
The patent in question is one of four patents that Huawei has accused Xiaomi of infringing. The other three patents relate to methods and devices for sending control signaling, feedback of ACK/NACK information during carrier aggregation, and a method and terminal for obtaining panoramic images.
Xiaomi has denied infringing any of Huawei's patents. The company has filed a request for invalidation of all four patents. The oral hearing for the invalidation requests is scheduled for July 21, 2023.
The outcome of the invalidation requests could have a significant impact on the ongoing patent dispute between Xiaomi and Huawei. If the invalidation requests are successful, it could clear Xiaomi of any liability for infringing Huawei's patents. This would be a major victory for Xiaomi, as it would allow the company to continue selling its products without fear of legal action from Huawei.
On the other hand, if the invalidation requests are unsuccessful, it could strengthen Huawei's case against Xiaomi. This could lead to a more costly and protracted legal battle between the two companies.
0 Comments